SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt Lavleen Soin W/O Shri … vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 July, 2018


S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3975/2018

Smt Lavleen Soin W/o Shri Yashvinder Singh Soin , Aged About 53
Years, R/o Flat No. 402, Madho Parl Apartment, Vivekanand Marg, C-
Scheme Jaipur



1. State Of Rajasthan , Through P.p.

2. Yashvinder Singh Soin S/o Late Shri Karmraj Singh , R/o 32,
Sangram Colony, C-Scheme Jaipur


For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.C. Ratnu
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Sharma
For the State : Mr. Prakash Thakuria, P.P.


/ Order


Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482

Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of impugned F.I.R. No.142/2013 registered at

Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (South) for offences punishable

under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. on the basis of compromise.

Smt. Lavleen Soin on 24.01.1988, as per Anand Karaj

Ceremony was married with the respondent No.2. Complainant-

petitioner and accused/respondent No.2 were blessed with a daughter,

named Sanya Singh.

Due to differences which arose, the parties could not live

together, hence, they decided to part gracefully.

The complainant/petitioner because of circumstances was

compelled to lodge above said F.I.R.

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-3975/2018]

Complainant/petitioner – Smt. Lavleen Soin and her

daughter – Sanya Singh are present in person before this Court. They

have been identified by their Counsel Mr. C.C. Ratnu.

Complainant-petitioner – Smt. Lavleen Soin, present in

person, has stated that she has already filed a petition under Section

13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage and the said

petition is coming up for final motion before the Family Court, Jaipur on

23.07.2018. It is submitted that respondent No.2 has already

transferred the plot and flat in the name of the daughter of the parties,

namely Sanya Singh. Complainant/petitioner has stated that respondent

has agreed to pay Rs.20,00,000/- to the petitioner/complainant at the

time of dissolution of marriage. Complainant/respondent has prayed

that the impugned F.I.R. be quashed to facilitate the parties to pursue

their life and move ahead.

The learned counsels appearing for the parties have

submitted that the compromise was presented on 11.05.2018 before

the trial Court. The said compromise was accepted, qua offence under

Section 406 I.P.C. but the same was rejected, qua offence under

Section 498-A I.P.C. as same is non-compoundable.

Counsel appearing for the parties have vouchsafed the

factum of compromise.

The learned counsels appearing for the respective parties

have jointly prayed that since the matrimonial dispute has been

amicably resolved, the criminal cases pending between the parties as

well as impugned F.I.R. be quashed, so that the parties can pursue their

life and move ahead.

I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties

and have perused the contents of the instant petition.

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-3975/2018]

It has been often held by the Courts that hour of the

compromise is the finest hour between the parties and the Court while

exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash

the proceedings, even qua non-compoundable offences.

Furthermore, in the case of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of

Harayana, reported in [(2003) 4 S.C.C. 675], the Apex Court has

opined that although offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. is non-

compoundable, but in cases of matrimonial dispute to bring families at

peace, if the parties arrive at compromise, then proceedings, qua

offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. can be quashed by invoking its

inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Considering the fact that both the parties have resolved

their matrimonial dispute and the joint prayer made by the parties and

in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi

[supra], the present petition is allowed. The impugned F.I.R.

No.142/2013 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City

(South) for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C.,

along with all subsequent proceedings is quashed.

A liberty is granted to the petitioner to re-approach this

Court in case the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- is not paid to her by the

respondent No.2.



Powered by TCPDF (

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation